Airport Departure Tax To Be Increased To 700 Baht

[jdinasia]

Yeppers .... it is still cheap and since this is NOT about the new airport but ALL international departures from Thailand.

Cheaper than say --- Cambodia (and I think Laos and Burma

1000 makes good sense to me

It is about the new airport as nearly all international flights leave from that airport, all the other airports combined only add up to a handful of the flights that leave the kingdon. Besides they are using the new airport as an excuse to raise the price.

If your happy to pay as a percentage what Is as very expensive compared to it's competitors, are you also prepared to pay this much extra for all your goods and services so that the business can make a larger profit?

Why not pay extra on your electric bills, petrol, plane tickets, infact why don't you work out the average percentage difference is with all comoeting airports, then apply that percentage rise to every good and service you buy in Thailand, maybe then you'll realise that sometimes it's ok for businesses to make profits, but sometimes perhaps those payments are unreasonably high.

Maybe you have some good reasons you could explain to me why it needs to be so high when it seems the costs involved with operation are much lower than places such as Japan, Singapore and Hong Kong.

Or do you still want to insist that you think it's cheap compared to other similar services in the region.

It is cheap ..... and cheaper than the poorer neighbors. Comparing Thailand to Japan or Singapore is comparing apples to oranges Comparing what you have previously described as a thirdworld country/developing nation to a first world/developed country that can more afford to supplement the PSC is a spurious argument. I suggest you go back and reread what Samran has written.

ps ... there are lots of flights out of Phuket and Chiang Mai to other countries not just a handful <no they are not one of the biggest 50 in the world ... but still more than a handful

>

and come to think of it ... in BKK I did pay extra for water and electric

Edited August 31, 2006 by jdinasia

[womble]

the "average thai" won't be getting on a plane to fly internationally ......

Actually there are now very cheap international flights available, thus this hike will affect also "average thais". For example Bangkok-Singapore (without departure tax) is available for 1499B with AirAsia. Adding 700B departure tax on top of this will increase the overall price dramatically.

This will probably affect Thailand's tourism as well. Middle class people from the neighbouring countries will think twice before coming to Bangkok...

Absolutley!

It's the Thai people themselves that are getting the worse deal, large numbers of Thais travel with the cheaper airlines to destinations around asia, to those with less spending power and traveling regionally it's an added cost that is most certainly not welcome, especially when they are being given nothing in return. For a Thai family of four with the father paying it's the difference between 2000 baht and now 2800. Quite a big difference!

[womble]

Yeppers .... it is still cheap and since this is NOT about the new airport but ALL international departures from Thailand.

Cheaper than say --- Cambodia (and I think Laos and Burma

1000 makes good sense to me

It is about the new airport as nearly all international flights leave from that airport, all the other airports combined only add up to a handful of the flights that leave the kingdon. Besides they are using the new airport as an excuse to raise the price.

If your happy to pay as a percentage what Is as very expensive compared to it's competitors, are you also prepared to pay this much extra for all your goods and services so that the business can make a larger profit?

Why not pay extra on your electric bills, petrol, plane tickets, infact why don't you work out the average percentage difference is with all comoeting airports, then apply that percentage rise to every good and service you buy in Thailand, maybe then you'll realise that sometimes it's ok for businesses to make profits, but sometimes perhaps those payments are unreasonably high.

Maybe you have some good reasons you could explain to me why it needs to be so high when it seems the costs involved with operation are much lower than places such as Japan, Singapore and Hong Kong.

Or do you still want to insist that you think it's cheap compared to other similar services in the region.

It is cheap ..... and cheaper than the poorer neighbors. Comparing Thailand to Japan or Singapore is comparing apples to oranges Comparing what you have previously described as a thirdworld country/developing nation to a first world/developed country that can more afford to supplement the PSC is a spurious argument. I suggest you go back and reread what Samran has written.

ps ... there are lots of flights out of Phuket and Chiang Mai to other countries not just a handful <no they are not one of the biggest 50 in the world ... but still more than a handful

>

and come to think of it ... in BKK I did pay extra for water and electric

The reason the poorer neighbours are expensive compared to the busier airports is down to economies of scale, with far fewer passengers the price per head has to be higher as cost average per person is higher, I thought that was obvious?

And I havn't just compared it to to Japan or Singapore. i've compared it to every major airport in asia, oh sorry I forgot Shanghai (424 baht) and korea (392).

I disagree with your observation that they are like oranges and apples. I would compare it to something like very similar cars from different manufacturers. They are two peas from the same pod, Say a BMW and a Merc, or an audi and volvo. First you looks at the costs, if the Merc is more reliable (delayed buses, easy ground transport connections) and the servicing costs (departure tax)are cheaper it looks more attractive and so you will likley choose that over the BMW.

It's unlikely that you would buy a BMW and a Merc as you can't drive both at the same time similar to when you went shopping for apples you would more than likely get one type of apple and some other fruit that is actually nothing like an apple at all, an orange is citrus which the apple is not.

JD, why don't you just admit that it's expensive?

Edited August 31, 2006 by womble

[jdinasia]

Simply because it is NOT that expensive .... and again comparing countries thatcan afford to further supplement the PSA/departure tax to countries that cannot is spuriuos

[womble]

Simply because it is NOT that expensive .... and again comparing countries thatcan afford to further supplement the PSA/departure tax to countries that cannot is spuriuos

Burma - $10 - 375bt

[sbk]

Just curious, does anyone know if the departure tax for Thai citizens is still 2000 baht? Last time my husband flew to the US (2001) he had to pay 2000 while I paid 500. Has that been repealed?

[jdinasia]

SBK ... was 500 baht to Singapore last week

[jdinasia]

Simply because it is NOT that expensive .... and again comparing countries thatcan afford to further supplement the PSA/departure tax to countries that cannot is spuriuos

Burma - $10 - 375bt

Yes ... and the Burmese peoeple (even poorer than Thais) geta bit of a break .... however the visa for a short stay FAR more than kills that slight savings formost tourists ... same with most other countries nearby (laos and cambodia etc) though Cambodia gts you both ways

again the 200 baht increase is just no big deal but hey .... if it is! don't fly!

[sbk]

Thanks jd, he's not going with me this time, but we are both planning on going next year.

Anyway, a 200 baht increase all at once does add expense, most certainly, but out of curiousity sake, when was the last time they raised the departure tax? Was it pre-economic downturn? If so, then really, it is actually cheaper than before because back then it was 25 baht to one dollar so a 500 baht departure tax would have been $20, now, even at 700 baht it isnt quite $20.

And then again, when you factor in things like inflation, is it really such a huge jump?

Seems like a tempest in a teapot to me

[jdinasia]

Thanks jd, he's not going with me this time, but we are both planning on going next year.

Anyway, a 200 baht increase all at once does add expense, most certainly, but out of curiousity sake, when was the last time they raised the departure tax? Was it pre-economic downturn? If so, then really, it is actually cheaper than before because back then it was 25 baht to one dollar so a 500 baht departure tax would have been $20, now, even at 700 baht it isnt quite $20.

And then again, when you factor in things like inflation, is it really such a huge jump?

Seems like a tempest in a teapot to me

I completely agree sbk

[Axel]

The increase from Baht 250 to 500 was during the last 'crisis' when the Dollar climbed from 25 to around 40 Baht.

I still remember one official, quoted in BKK Post, having said foreigners would not even realize as they paid US$ 10 for Baht 250 and now US$ 10 for Baht 500.

[jdinasia]

http://traveltax.msu.edu/news/Stories/bangkokpost2.htm

April 1988 increase from 250-500

[Axel]

http://traveltax.msu.edu/news/Stories/bangkokpost2.htm

April 1988 increase from 250-500

Make that 1998 as per your attachment:

Airport tax to rise to B500

Copyright 1998 The Bangkok Post

[jdinasia]

Oooops! Typo ........ oh well too late to change it now

Edited August 31, 2006 by jdinasia

[womble]

Thanks jd, he's not going with me this time, but we are both planning on going next year.

Anyway, a 200 baht increase all at once does add expense, most certainly, but out of curiousity sake, when was the last time they raised the departure tax? Was it pre-economic downturn? If so, then really, it is actually cheaper than before because back then it was 25 baht to one dollar so a 500 baht departure tax would have been $20, now, even at 700 baht it isnt quite $20.

And then again, when you factor in things like inflation, is it really such a huge jump?

Seems like a tempest in a teapot to me

I completely agree sbk

And many economists would disagree with you JD. There's lots of figures there to show that the departure tax is expensive in relation to all other airports in the region. Do you have any evidence of the levels of subsidisation other airports in Asia are recieving from central government? Are you trying to tell me that all other airports in Asia are loss making? You know how stupid that sounds right? If not then i'm afraid your word is not good enough, this is the real world, and opinion isn't enough, cold hard facts and figures are what we need to make sensible unbias decisions.

If a company needs to make a decision and they consult two economists for their opinion, if they simply said that something is a certain way just because it is do you think they would be impressed, don't you think they may ask what it is that made him come to that decision?

You have offered nothing other than your opinion with no backing from sources or any figures to prove your Therom. I doubt many economists would be impressed and take your word for it that it's cheap, a Therom is nothing without evidence..

And using Cambodia as an example which is always near the bottom of the list on the world corruption index, is not going to help back up your argument. Corruption on the new airport is huge, millions of $ are being syphoned off where ever possible, it's highly unlikely some of this money in camboda isn't going to corruption, so I guess we can assume Cambodia is just as bad, if not worse than Thailand.

Are you one of these types that would argue black is white?

Edited August 31, 2006 by womble

[jdinasia]

I again refer you back to Samran's posts. and NO I am not saying ANYONE is losing money ... I am saying they lose money on the PSC.

You remember the PSC .... the topic of this thread?

[womble]

So why are taxpayers subsidising this when AOT just posted record profits???

Not only are travelers being ripped off, but every Thai tax payer is also getting a raw deal.

It gets worse and worse.

Greed knows know bounds with this new airport!

[womble]

Simply because it is NOT that expensive .... and again comparing countries thatcan afford to further supplement the PSA/departure tax to countries that cannot is spuriuos

Is that an admission that it is actually expensive (well not that expensive )

[jdinasia]

no ... but feel free to bait me some more ... or not read it as written Then again I am not whingeing about leaving I do NOT think the fee is excessive. Said it over and over. Many folks agree. So you don't Then don't pay it

[jdinasia]

So why are taxpayers subsidising this when AOT just posted record profits???

Not only are travelers being ripped off, but every Thai tax payer is also getting a raw deal.

It gets worse and worse.

Greed knows know bounds with this new airport!

USERS are paying it ... 17% according to the 1998 article are Thai ...

Yes they posted a profit the profit did not come from PSC's as PSC's are not at a level to support the cost per passenger

[womble]

no ... but feel free to bait me some more ... or not read it as written Then again I am not whingeing about leaving I do NOT think the fee is excessive. Said it over and over. Many folks agree. So you don't Then don't pay it

So you don't think it's expensive, but all facts and figures prove that it is.

Are you an elite card member?

[samran]

So why are taxpayers subsidising this when AOT just posted record profits???

Not only are travelers being ripped off, but every Thai tax payer is also getting a raw deal.

It gets worse and worse.

Greed knows know bounds with this new airport!

You are viewing the world of the thai government through very very narrow glasses womble.

Yes, AOT and a handful of other state owned enterprises are making profits. It all goes back into the coffers though to subsidise the other 75 or so moribund and chronically loss making enterprises. Ever heard of the Tank Battery factory. Yep. 100% state owned. A monopoly too on tank battery production and sales in Thailand.

Govenment officials here are still back in the 1960's, 1970's at best. Hands all over the levers of the economy. Its not always about corruption mate. It is about power.

[jdinasia]

I thought AOT was publicly traded Samran .....

and No Womble .... I do not have an Elite card. But really if this is such a big deal for you! Just don't fly!

And Womble .... yet again ..... this is ALL interntiona airports in Thailand ... not just the new one.

Really as SBK pointed out .... it is a tempest in a teacup.

Edited August 31, 2006 by jdinasia

[womble]

So why are taxpayers subsidising this when AOT just posted record profits???

Not only are travelers being ripped off, but every Thai tax payer is also getting a raw deal.

It gets worse and worse.

Greed knows know bounds with this new airport!

USERS are paying it ... 17% according to the 1998 article are Thai ...

Yes they posted a profit the profit did not come from PSC's as PSC's are not at a level to support the cost per passenger

Ok.......

So let expand on that.......

Do you have data to show the level of government subsidy for passenger use of the terminal.

If the government is subsidising, why are they doing so when AOT has funds themselves from other services paid for by passengers.

It actually sounds like the tax payer and the passenger is paying more so AOT can increase profits, the passenger more than pays for use when you factor in what AOT gets in rents from restaurants, shops, offices there to cater for the passengers.

"it is a tempest in a teacup."

I'm trying to have a healthy discussion here, I want to understand why it is higher than elsewhere, nothing wrong with that, I like to know where my hard earnt cash is going. When I am overcharged I don't like it, where as when I recieve good service and fair value I am happy. There is nothing wrong with understanding why things are certain prices, what costs are to the provider of a service and their profits.

It's called economics.

You will rarely see two economists agree on everything, healthy discussion and a sharing of information though can help them come to sensible and plausible conclusions.

Edited August 31, 2006 by womble

[samran]

mate, 29% of the shares are traded from memory. You won't see a full privatisation here for a long time. Too politically sensitive. Plus, as I said, pollies and burecrats like their real train sets and airports to play with.

The remaining shares are held in a vehicle owned by the Ministry of Finance.

[jdinasia]

mate, 29% of the shares are traded from memory. You won't see a full privatisation here for a long time. Too politically sensitive. Plus, as I said, pollies and burecrats like their real train sets and airports to play with.

The remaining shares are held in a vehicle owned by the Ministry of Finance.

Thanks! thought it was fully privatized

Womble .... go do your own research or chat with Samran or just cry in your breakfast cereal Your constant whinge on having to pay another 200 baht is boring me. The info is out there yet you refuse to see it! You compare apples and oranges! and going back to your very first post in this thread and many subsequent ones ... you are just unhappy here:( ... and it quit raining so I am off for a ride

[samran]

in very basic terms, a regulator would look at if AOT was making more than what economists would call a 'normal' profit. Normally, the calculation is based on the CPI (inflation rate) minus (or plus) some sort of efficency factor. Given this is a new airport, the efficency factor is likely to be a negative also...new and high capital costs etc etc.....

Remembering your maths lessons, two negative signs make a positive. So therefore profits would be well in excess of inflation.

[samran]

very quiet here all of a sudden....

[womble]

in very basic terms, a regulator would look at if AOT was making more than what economists would call a 'normal' profit. Normally, the calculation is based on the CPI (inflation rate) minus (or plus) some sort of efficency factor. Given this is a new airport, the efficency factor is likely to be a negative also...new and high capital costs etc etc.....

Remembering your maths lessons, two negative signs make a positive. So therefore profits would be well in excess of inflation.

Hmm interesting, is there an air quango in Thailand? And are any regulatory departments working in a transparent manner, they certainly arn't for the telecomunications sector.

Actually Samran I find this really interesting and I can see you are obviously in the know, could you tell us more of wht you know about the airport, maybe you have some stuff that will change the opinion of many towards the new airport. In your eyes will it be a force to be reckoned with compared to it's rivals in the region?

I for one am not impressed at all with various aspects, but i'm hoping there will be good shopping and other facilities that will make it an improvement on the current airport. Also speedy electric walkways as walking so far in the airport now is a pain.

If I have to pay more to use it with greater inconvenience i'm not happy, but if they are giving other services maybe it wont be too bad. My biggest gripe is getting the bus to get a taxi, I won't put up for a taxi scam, maybe get a taxi from departures, but I did read somewhere that they were going to stop meter taxi's picking up customers.

Do you know who has the concession for taxi's within the main terminal?

Edited August 31, 2006 by womble

[zink]

About departure taxes in rich and poor countries: is Vietnam poor enough?

GDP per capita adjusted for purchasing power from CIA factbook:

Vietnam: $2,800 ( https://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/geos/vm.html )

Thailand: $8,300 ( https://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/geos/th.html )

Departure taxes in Vietnam: US$14 (525B Ho Chi Minh City), US$12 (450B Hanoi) and US$8 (300B Da Nang) ( http://www.iexplore.com/dmap/Vietnam/Do's+and+Don'ts )

Edited August 31, 2006 by zink